News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Torture. The word you're looking for is torture. The CIA & FBI tortured this man for over twenty years.
Oh, and they did it illegally, because:
So they tortured this man for over twenty years while denying him the right to counsel or even to be silent, then expected the judge to accept his confession as legitimate.
Whether or not you have sympathy for Mohammed, how he's been treated is an absolute shit-show. Remember, this man has yet to be convicted of a crime, and the crime they're going after him for, heinous though it may be, happened 25 years ago.
Here's the rub - if they have the evidence to convict, then they don't need the confession. Yet they found the need to waterboard this man for 20+ years to obtain it. This means that the other evidence they have against him is too flimsy to secure a conviction on its own.
And that means they've been torturing a technically innocent man for three decades to save face.
I agree with everything you've said. I think I would draw a clear distinction between "not legally established" and "innocent." To be clear, nothing justifies 20 years of torture, no matter what he did, but it seems to me this guy is innocent the same way Trump is innocent of violently raping children.
Keeping him behind bars might well have prevented him from planning additional attacks or even being elevated to political prominence. But torture is beyond the pale.
What are you basing that on? Information that was given to you by the people that tortured him?
The United States justice system is based on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. He has not been proven guilty. As such he is innocent in the eyes of the law.
If you imprison people based on what they might do, you no longer have a justice system. All you have is a lawless police state.
Well we’re doing a shit ton of the last thing you mentioned, so it appears we’re a lawless state.
As a Native American I and my ancestors have been saying this all along. It’s just that non wealthy white people are finally being targeted and are just now realizing it’s the case. Maybe they’ll eventually realize it’s always been the case.
If freed, there is every reason to believe he would have planned and executed further attacks, and probably that he would today. Which means all of those additional lost lives are the cost to free him. That's not a cost that's in our interest to pay. It's certainly not a cost I'd be willing to pay.
Asymmetrical warfare is something that isn't fully handled by a legal system and not a purely military issue. This is a not a case of easy answers and clear morality. If the families of those alternative timeline victims could blame you for their loss, would the right choice be so clear to you? It wouldn't to me.
You clearly have no morality.
If it's so clear that he did it then there should be plenty of evidence and torture shouldn't even be necessary. As to the risk of him planning the next terrorism attack - incarceration "just in case" isn't necessary (and not lawful for good reason) - planning crimes, especially terrorist offences, are already crimes themselves, so it doesn't have to go that far to rearrest him if he really does tend to go in that direction.
According to who? The CIA and FBI agents that beat a confession out of him? The press that presumed him guilty the moment they chose to notice him? We have no idea who this guy actually is other than what they claim, because it's never come out in a public court of law.
If there's evidence to convict him, convict him and make him suffer the penalty of the law. Otherwise you're destroying a man on the basis of hearsay, and undermining your own justice system in the process.
Only fascist anti-American pieces of shit who hate the Bill of Rights draw that distinction. Ever.
If that's not clear enough, I can try to state it in even more emphatic terms.